Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3100+

1 / 1

475

0.0%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron J1750

2 / 2

505

+6.3%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 3100+

2008

Why buy it

✅+12% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron J1750 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Celeron J1750 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2400% higher power demand at 25W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 25W, a 24W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon 64 3100+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (250 vs 280).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Athlon 64 3100+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1750 is ahead with a 6.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3100+ pulls ahead with 12% better Geekbench multi-core.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3100+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 12% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron J1750 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3100+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM2.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 3100+

The Athlon 64 3100+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3100+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron J1750 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 18.6% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3100+ scores 475 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron J1750. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 280 vs 150, a 60.5% lead for the Athlon 64 3100+ that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 280 vs 250 (11.3% advantage for the Athlon 64 3100+).

Feature	Athlon 64 3100+	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.41 GHz+21%
Base Clock	—	2.41 GHz
L3 Cache	—	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K+51100%	1 MB
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Lima (2008−2009)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	475	505+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	280+87%	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	280+12%	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3100+) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Athlon 64 3100+ offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 3100+) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Athlon 64 3100+	Celeron J1750
Socket	AM2	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3L-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 3100+) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 3100+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 3100+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Athlon 64 3100+ rivals Celeron D 352; Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.